What the Pentagons missiles and bombs actually cost prepare to be disgusted..

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Actually they aren't. There are two categories, Foreign Military Sales or FMS, and Direct Commercial Sales or DCS. In both cases negotiations are with the manufacturer, and all monies go to them. Under FMS the State Department determines if the sale should go through or not. If they approve it, then it goes to Congress and eventually the President. Once approval is obtained, the DSCA will negotiate with the supplier, and purchase the equipment through the US acquisition system. It's then transferred to the foreign purchaser. DSCA charges administrative charges to the foreign governments, but the US government isn't actually selling the weapons. They may purchase the equipment through the DoD, and then the foreign government reimburses them, but the purchase money isn't going to the government, it's going to the supplier. There are also assistance programs and grants through FMS.

Under DCS, the foreign government looking to buy the equipment goes through the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. In this case, the supplier has to get approval to get an export license, because the equipment being sold is on the USML, which is export controlled. Once approval is given, then negotiations begin, and a private agreement between the foreign government and the supplier is entered into.

Most foreign governments like to go the FMS route, because they'll get a better price, since it goes through our military, and in some cases is included in our purchase of the same equipment, but DCS is also used a lot because then it's a proprietary agreement. The government isn't actually selling anything, they're simply facilitating the deal between the supplier and the foreign government.

www.state.gov...

www.dsca.mil...

a reply to: 727Sky

That money doesn't go to the government though, as most people think. It goes to the supplier that builds the equipment. The government isn't actually selling weapons.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Actually they aren't. There are two categories, Foreign Military Sales or FMS, and Direct Commercial Sales or DCS. In both cases negotiations are with the manufacturer, and all monies go to them. Under FMS the State Department determines if the sale should go through or not. If they approve it, then it goes to Congress and eventually the President. Once approval is obtained, the DSCA will negotiate with the supplier, and purchase the equipment through the US acquisition system. It's then transferred to the foreign purchaser. DSCA charges administrative charges to the foreign governments, but the US government isn't actually selling the weapons. They may purchase the equipment through the DoD, and then the foreign government reimburses them, but the purchase money isn't going to the government, it's going to the supplier. There are also assistance programs and grants through FMS.

Under DCS, the foreign government looking to buy the equipment goes through the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. In this case, the supplier has to get approval to get an export license, because the equipment being sold is on the USML, which is export controlled. Once approval is given, then negotiations begin, and a private agreement between the foreign government and the supplier is entered into.

Most foreign governments like to go the FMS route, because they'll get a better price, since it goes through our military, and in some cases is included in our purchase of the same equipment, but DCS is also used a lot because then it's a proprietary agreement. The government isn't actually selling anything, they're simply facilitating the deal between the supplier and the foreign government.

www.state.gov...

www.dsca.mil...

I wouldn't waste your time. He's not interested in reality, he's interested in pushing an agenda.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 727Sky

That money doesn't go to the government though, as most people think. It goes to the supplier that builds the equipment. The government isn't actually selling weapons.

True but if the Company or supplier pays taxes the government gets their share. If the company has employees with wages and social security the government gets their share. The government is going to get a piece of the action one way or the other.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

Well you don't make money through social programs for citizens you make money through war, and money is all that matters.

You can't make money in the healthcare sector? Education? Housing? Any of the other areas where we have social programs? There's no money to be made? All of that stuff is provided by charity organizations, not for profit?

You guys really don't think through these talking points. You just regurgitate whatever you're told to regurgitate, no questions asked. Sickening.

Ok genius , explain to me how using tax money for universal healthcare or other social programs is going to make money, I'm all ears....

You can't be serious.

The same way using tax money for military spending "makes money." You have to pay the people and groups who provide those things, whether it's defense contractors or doctors and hospitals. Healthcare isn't free you know.

You just said the goverment can make money from healthcare, explain how, don't try and change the goal posts .

Quotation marks, look them up. I was using your term, which is a complete misnomer, because the government makes money from neither war nor healthcare.

Perhaps learn to follow a conversation.

We were talking about tax money being spent on military, a member said better that the money goes into social programs, I simply pointed out that goverment can't make money that way so it isn't a priority.

The goverment does however make mo money from sales of weaponry, the same weapons that are made using tax dollars....do you get it now...

a reply to: 727Sky

Sure, but most of those weapons were going to be produced anyway, just for us. It's not like they're seeing a huge increase in payroll taxes, or taxes paid by the company (most of whom probably don't pay anything anyway) because they're selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, or Japan.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok yes technically you're right.

Tell me though the people in goverment get kickbacks from securing these contracts, like Clinton's and Halliburton for example.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

Well you don't make money through social programs for citizens you make money through war, and money is all that matters.

You can't make money in the healthcare sector? Education? Housing? Any of the other areas where we have social programs? There's no money to be made? All of that stuff is provided by charity organizations, not for profit?

You guys really don't think through these talking points. You just regurgitate whatever you're told to regurgitate, no questions asked. Sickening.

Ok genius , explain to me how using tax money for universal healthcare or other social programs is going to make money, I'm all ears....

You can't be serious.

The same way using tax money for military spending "makes money." You have to pay the people and groups who provide those things, whether it's defense contractors or doctors and hospitals. Healthcare isn't free you know.

You just said the goverment can make money from healthcare, explain how, don't try and change the goal posts .

Quotation marks, look them up. I was using your term, which is a complete misnomer, because the government makes money from neither war nor healthcare.

Perhaps learn to follow a conversation.

We were talking about tax money being spent on military, a member said better that the money goes into social programs, I simply pointed out that goverment can't make money that way so it isn't a priority.

The goverment does however make mo money from sales of weaponry, the same weapons that are made using tax dollars....do you get it now...

I am following the conversation. You said the government can't make money on healthcare, but it can on war. It makes money on neither. You were wrong. And it's not a technicality. You've believed a lie for how many years because it suited your agenda?

How long have you thought war was a business? And will you tell other people who were lied to about that the truth you just learned?

a reply to: face23785

War is a business, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: face23785

War is a business, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

Mental gymnastics like pushing a factually inaccurate talking point? You just got proven wrong. Grow up and admit it.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Whether they do or not is irrelevant. It's still not the government selling weapons, it's individuals or corporations getting kickbacks. The money still isn't going into the government's pocket. And even if they do, most of our allies are going to come to us regardless, because they know our quality is better than other countries, such as China and Russia. Yes, it costs more, but they're going to be able to use the equipment a lot longer in most cases.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Whether they do or not is irrelevant. It's still not the government selling weapons, it's individuals or corporations getting kickbacks. The money still isn't going into the government's pocket.

What's hilarious is he thinks the same kind of cronyism doesn't happen in other industries, like healthcare. Last I checked, the biggest spenders on lobbying are the pharmaceutical companies, not defense contractors.

But again, you're not dealing with someone that's interested in a factual discussion. He has a narrative to push. He's not open to contrary information. And he's believed this BS so long he can't possibly believe he's been wrong all this time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

How is it irrelevent, as sky said one way or another goverment gets it's share.

Another example would be opium from Afghanistan, a faction of t hge goverment whether it be CIA or some other 3 letter agency are in making money and using soldiers that are funded by American tax dollars.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Sure it does, unless they have a shelter to put the money into and hide it so that the government doesn't see it. Or they use the tax code to end up paying almost nothing in taxes, like many corporations do. The government will get some money, but that doesn't mean that they're seeing more money from weapons sales, or at least not a lot more.

As for the CIA, they're a special case. They're going to end up using drug sales one way or another to make money, whether there's a war on or not. And all that money goes into their coffers.

a reply to: FauxMulder
All of the politicians and their friends own the companies charging 15 dollars a screw . We need to end it or the rest of our lineage will be slaves to our globalist masters

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's what I'm trying to say, the goverment doesn't admit or openly do it, it's the corrupt people in goverment using the tax funds for nefarious purpose, ala goverment corruption. I should have been more specific...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's what I'm trying to say, the goverment doesn't admit or openly do it, it's the corrupt people in goverment using the tax funds for nefarious purpose, ala goverment corruption. I should have been more specific...

And you think this is exclusive to the defense industry? This happens across government, in virtually every sector you can think of. So yeah, you can stop the "we don't spend money on social programs because it's all about 'making money' on defense" nonsense. We spend over $3T a year on social programs, and there's plenty of cronyism involved.

a reply to: face23785

Semantics.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: face23785

Semantics.

Look, I get it. It's not every day your worldview gets shattered. You thought wars were only fought to make the government money and you found out that's hilariously wrong. It wasn't a matter of a technicality, opinion, degrees, semantics, or anything else. You were just wrong. Don't be so closed-minded. We gave you new information that disposed of a misconception you likely held for years. Learning is okay, people do it every day.

a reply to: face23785

No but you feel free to think that if it makes you feel better.